Cesar Martinez-Rodriguez, et al. v. Curtis Giles, et al.

Boise, Idaho employment lawyers represented Plaintiffs, who sued Defendants on force labor theories.



Plaintiffs were six citizens of Mexico who were recruited

to work as "Animal Scientists” at Funk Dairy in Idaho under

the "TN Visa” program for "professional” employees

established under the North American Free Trade

Agreement. But when plaintiffs arrived at the dairy, they

were instead required to work substantially as general

laborers. Plaintiffs alleged that defendants' bait-and-switch

tactics violated applicable federal statutory prohibitions on

forced labor by, among other things, abusing the TN Visa

program in order to coerce plaintiffs to provide menial

physical labor.



For purposes of their summary judgment motion,

defendants conceded that all plaintiffs believed that their

ability to remain lawfully in the U.S. depended on their

continued employment at Funk Dairy. The panel concluded

that in light of that concession and its obligation, on review

of a grant of summary judgment to defendants, to construe

the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, a

reasonable jury could find that Funk Dairy knowingly

obtained plaintiffs' labor by abusing the TN Visa process in

order to exert pressure on plaintiffs to provide labor that was

substantially different from what had been represented to

them and to federal consular officials. The panel held that,

so construed, Funk Dairy's conduct violated the provisions

of Chapter 77 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code that prohibit

forced labor and trafficking of persons into forced labor.

Plaintiffs therefore asserted triable causes of action under the

civil suit provision of Chapter 77, 18 U.S.C. § 1595(a)



* * *



The TN Visa program, established "pursuant to the

provisions of Section D of Annex 1603” of NAFTA, allows

a citizen of Mexico or Canada to be admitted to the United

States for the purpose of "engag[ing] in business activities at

a professional level as provided for in such Annex.” See

8 U.S.C. § 1184(e)(2).1 The referenced Section D states that

the program only applies to a "profession set out in

Appendix 1603.D.1,” see NAFTA, Annex 1603.D.1,

December 17, 1992, 32 I.L.M. 612, 666, and that Appendix

lists dozens of different professions, see NAFTA, Appendix

1603.D.1, 32 I.L.M. at 668–70. The work must be

performed for "a United States entity,” which may include

an "individual,” see 8 C.F.R. § 214.6(b), but that entity need

not be the formal "employer” of the visa holder, see id.

§ 214.6(d)(3)(ii), (h)(1). A person granted a TN Visa may

be admitted "for a period not to exceed three years.” Id.

§ 214.6(e). The visa may be extended for additional periods

of up to three years upon application of the "United States

employer” of the beneficiary or, in the case of a foreign

employer, the "United States entity” for which the work is

performed. Id. § 214.6(h)(1). So long as the alien remains

qualified for a TN Visa and "continues to be engaged in TN

business activities for a U.S. employer or entity at a

professional level,” there "is no specific limit” on the

number of extensions that may be granted. Id.

§ 214.6(h)(1)(iv).

Because the panel held that the district court erred in

dismissing plaintiffs’ federal claims, the panel also reversed

the district court’s decision to decline supplemental

jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ claims under Idaho state law